Centeno-Sarabia #267426 v. Shinn et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jorge C. Centeno-Sarabia,
Petitioner,
v.
David Shinn, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-23-00075-PHX-GMS
ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf (Doc. 69) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that
Grounds 3, 4, 5A, 5B, 5E and 5F be dismissed with prejudice with the remainder of
Petitioner’s Petition, including Grounds 1, 2, 5C and 5D, be denied. The Magistrate Judge
advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 47
(citing United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). Petitioner filed
objections (Doc. 72) and Respondents filed a reply (Doc. 77).
Ceteno-Sarabia also filed a Motion to Amend his Objections (Doc. 75).
Respondents filed a response (Doc. 76) and do not object to the motion to the extent it
seeks to change a citation to the record at Doc. 72, p. 8. The motion is granted.
The Court has considered the objections and reply and reviewed the Report and
Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that
the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and
Case 2:23-cv-00075-GMS Document 78 Filed 11/06/25 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Recommendation to which specific objections are made). In his objection, Mr. Centeno-
Sarabia (“Centeno-Sarabia”) objects to the R&R’s recitation of the factual background of
his case because it was “drawn from the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals,” but
does not reflect what he believed really happened. (Doc. 72, p. 2). Centeno-Sarabia asserts
that the witnesses perjured themselves, the trial court erred in allowing a detective to testify
as an expert, and there were other deficiencies in the evidence presented. (Doc. 72, p. 2).
The R&R acknowledges the appellate court decision presents the facts in the light
most favorable to sustaining the judgment. (Doc. 69, p. 4). Reciting the facts in this way
in an R&R is appropriate. See Runningeagle v. Ryan, 686 F.3d 758, 763 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012).
This objection is overruled.
Centeno-Sarabia next objects to the R&R’s finding that Ground 3 (Brady claim re:
undisclosed DNA evidence) was procedurally barred because the state court found that he
waived it because he could have raised it on direct appeal but did not. (Doc. 72, pp. 2-6).
As the R&R explained, the state court correctly applied the procedural bar because it
effectively found that the facts (undisclosed DNA evidence) alleged by Centeno-Sarabia
were not newly discovered nor would they have changed the outcome of trial because they
were not exculpatory. (Doc. 69, p. 15). The objection is overruled.
Centeno-Sarabia objects to the R&R’s finding that Ground 4 (double jeopardy
violation) was procedurally barred because the state court found that he had waived the
claim because he could have raised it on direct appeal but did not. (Doc. 72, pp. 6-10).
Centeno-Sarabia challenges the R&R’s finding that he did not present cause to excuse his
procedural default on this claim. (Doc. 69, pp. 16-15). Centeno-Sarabia asserts that his
counsel was responsible for this claim not being raised on appeal and therefore the default
should be “imputed to the state” because he was entitled to the effective assistance of
counsel. (Doc. 72, p. 9).
Centeno-Sarabia did not assert this purported claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel as cause for his default in his reply. (Doc. 69, p. 26). The objection is overruled.
Centeno-Sarabia objects to the R&R’s finding that he failed to present Ground 5(a)
Case 2:23-cv-00075-GMS Document 78 Filed 11/06/25 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(compulsory process violation) to the state courts as a violation of his federal constitutional
rights. (Doc. 72, pp. 10-12). The R&R correctly concluded Ground 5(A) was procedurally
barred under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(3) because the state court found that Centeno-
Sarabia could have raised it on direct appeal but did not. (Doc. 69, pp. 18-19). The
objection is overruled.
Centeno-Sarabia objects to the R&R’s conclusion that Ground 1 (denial of reply in
his first PCR proceeding) was without merit. (Doc. 72, pp. 13-15). The R&R set forth
thorough discussion that this claim lacked merit for serval reasons. (Doc. 69, pp. 30-37).
The objection is overruled.
Finally, Centeno-Sarabia objects to the R&R’s finding that Ground 2 (ineffective
assistance of counsel) was without merit. (Doc. 72, pp. 16-20). The R&R found that
counsel had not been ineffective in failing to better argue a claim that counsel was ordered
to address by the appellate court about whether the police officer improperly testified about
his opinion of the victim’s credibility because, “even if counsel had successfully argued
these matters,” the appellate court found no fundamental error had occurred. (Doc. 69, p.
40). The objection is overruled.
Centeno-Sarabia does not make any specific objections to the R&R’s conclusion
that Ground 5(B) was procedurally barred, that Grounds 5(C) and (D) lacked merit; or that
Grounds 5(E) and (F) are procedurally defaulted because they were never fairly presented
to the state courts.
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations and, thus, accepts
the recommendations within the meaning of rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules
Petitioner’s objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate”).
IT IS ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc.
69) is accepted.
Case 2:23-cv-00075-GMS Document 78 Filed 11/06/25 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Centeno-Sarabia’s Motion to Amend his
Objection (Doc. 75).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment
dismissing Grounds 3, 4, 5A, 5B, 5E, and 5F of Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus with prejudice. That the remainder of Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Doc. 1), including Grounds 1, 2, 5C and 5D be denied. The Clerk shall terminate
this case.
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts requires the district court to “issue or a deny a certificate of appealability when it
enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Should
Petitioner seek a certificate of appealability, a certificate of appealability should be denied
because he has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
Dated this 5th day of November, 2025.
Case 2:23-cv-00075-GMS Document 78 Filed 11/06/25 Page 4 of 4